Evolution and the Blame Game

Adam blamed Eve (Genesis 3:12). Eve blamed Satan (3:13). The Israelites blamed Moses (Exodus 14:10-12). Saul blamed the Israelites (1 Samuel 15:15). Ahab blamed Elijah (1 Kings 18:17-18). Since the beginning of time, man has sought to shun personal responsibility by shifting blame elsewhere for his sinful actions. Children pick up on this early in life as they frequently look to siblings for a way out of trouble. “Ricky made me do it....” “Rachel started it....” “Lance dared me to....” Normally, discussions on shifting culpability to others are negative in nature. Blameworthy individuals who refuse to admit their wrongdoings are acting sinfully and irresponsibly (1 John 1:8-10; cf. 2 Samuel 12:13). Among atheistic evolutionists, however, the blameworthy become the blameless; anything and everything can be chocked up to “the overpowering forces of evolutionary genes.”

In 2000, Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer authored A Natural History of Rape in which they alleged that “[e]volutionary theory applies to rape, as it does to other areas of human affairs, on both logical and evidentiary grounds. There is no legitimate scientific reason not to apply evolutionary or ultimate hypotheses to rape” (p. 55). They continued: “Human rape arises from men’s evolved machinery for obtaining a high number of mates in an environment where females choose mates” (p. 190, emp. added). Although Thornhill and Palmer “would like to see rape eradicated from human life” (p. xi), they are forced to conclude, in essence, that nothing is ultimately wrong with the practice (see Butt, 2005 for more discussion).

Fast forward six years to the 2006 meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology in Prague, Czech Republic. According to the society’s official Web site, evolutionist Dr. Laurence Shaw argued that teenage sexual promiscuity and subsequent pregnancy should be accepted as normal since they are simply “consequences of evolution” (“Teenage...,” 2006). He stated:

[B]efore we condemn our teenagers for having sex behind the bike sheds and becoming pregnant, we should remember that this is a natural response by these girls to their rising fertility levels. Society may ‘tut, tut’ about them, but their actions are part of an evolutionary process that goes back nearly two million years; whilst their behaviour may not fit with Western society’s expectations, it is perhaps useful to consider it in the wider context (“Teenage...,” emp. added).

Allegedly, when pre-marital sexual relations and teenage pregnancy are examined in view of the “wider context,” namely, our alleged evolutionary heritage, they are perceived simply as natural, normal, and acceptable. That is, pre-marital sex is not wrong, and teenage pregnancy is not a blight on society.

Dr. Shaw’s comments are just another example of how destructive evolutionary thought really is when taken to its logical conclusion. If there is no God, and man evolved from slime, then there are no universal, timeless, moral truths. Right and wrong exist only in a world where an infinite, eternal, Almighty God exists. If our alleged mammalian, reptilian, and amphibian ancestors did not restrain themselves sexually, why should we? If our supposed ape-like ancestors could mate whenever, wherever, and with whomever, without feeling a twinge of guilt, so can we! What’s more, to criticize individuals for acting a certain way (i.e., engaging in pre-marital sexual relations) is intolerable and reveals a lack of intelligence. Dr. Shaw even mocked those who “condemn” sexual promiscuity and teenage pregnancy by saying they “tut, tut” about something without sufficient awareness of the past.

Although Christians increasingly are viewed as unenlightened and shallow minded, they actually are the ones who understand where irrational, atheistic evolutionary thought ultimately leads. If sexual relations outside of marriage are merely “natural” and “part of an evolutionary process,” then what about the many other things man may desire to do? It may be “natural” for a person to covet (and take) what another possess. Stronger animals are often seen taking what weaker animals possess. Should we tolerate theft, reasoning that our “actions are part of an evolutionary process” that goes back millions of years? It may be “natural” for people to have a desire to kill someone for making them upset (e.g., being cut off by someone in traffic). Since our animal ancestors killed each other, and since animals today continue to kill, why shouldn’t we? Can you imagine if such argumentation—“I’m not guilty because my animal instincts made me do it”—was used in theft and murder trials? By taking atheistic evolution to its logical conclusion, one can see how repulsive and destructive the philosophy really is. Evolution naturally leads to lawlessness and social anarchy.

Since sin entered the world, man has compounded the error of his ways by seeking to circumvent the consequences of his actions. Sadly, evolutionists have taken the blame game to a whole new level. If we can legitimately blame sexual promiscuity, teenage pregnancy, and rape on our animal heritage, how could we ever be held responsible for anything? Perhaps this “freedom” from responsibility is the major attraction to evolutionary philosophy: “Accept our naturalistic explanation of things and you will never have to feel guilty for anything again.”

In reality, sin can never be cured by shifting culpability to anything or anyone other than self. It was not until King David owned up to his sin that the Lord forgave him (2 Samuel 12:13). Only when Peter humbled himself and confessed his sin was he fit to fish for men (Luke 5:8-11). Even Christians must continually confess their sins in order to be cleansed of them by the blood of Jesus (1 John 1:8-10). Truly, a guiltless life begins, not in the acceptance of a temporary, godless, lawless, hedonistic philosophy like atheistic evolution, but in the submission to Almighty God, Who graciously offers guilt-free, eternal life through His Son (John 3:16; Revelation 22:17).

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Creation Vs. Evolution" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.